I'd guess because it is a man-made, arbitrary distinction that yhwh didn't care about.

The point of Lev 11 was to divide the edible, clean animals from the taboo animals. Bats were named within a group of inedible birds - birds of prey and carrion eaters (plus a few weird ones like swans) - but that does not necessarily mean they equated bats and birds. It just means the flying rodents were not to be found on hebrew dinner tables.

John wrote down what he saw in a vision/dream. He used the nomenclature he was familiar with. Atheists always try to play with words.... I talked to one guy who said the Bible is false because a bat is not a bird. Well, Moses called it a bird because it was not until the 1700's that scientists classified bats as mammals. Moses just wrote what he knew. John did the same. I do not know how easier I can explain this.

Honestly, what makes you think that Revelation was actually a divine prophecy at all? It could have simply been a very vivid dream, produced by his own mind. Given that the author was probably exiled to the Isle of Patmos by the Roman emperor Diocletian during a time of anti-Christian persecution, it is well within the realm of possibility that the whole book of Revelation was the equivalent of a revenge fantasy that he assumed was a divine message from God.

After all, what better way to get back at those mean, nasty, pagan Romans than by prophesying the destruction of their whole empire and the birth of a new kingdom led by a god to replace it?

I'd guess because it is a man-made, arbitrary distinction that yhwh didn't care about.

The point of Lev 11 was to divide the edible, clean animals from the taboo animals. Bats were named within a group of inedible birds - birds of prey and carrion eaters (plus a few weird ones like swans) - but that does not necessarily mean they equated bats and birds. It just means the flying rodents were not to be found on Hebrew dinner tables.

You mean just like banning that delicious and tasty animal the pig form dinner tables? Just like Mo did a few centuries later.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

From the book of Revelation according to someone who was actually given a view of modern fighting and weapons:

Quote

I saw horse-less metal chariots flying in the sky on small wings with long tails. And death flew from the wings to kill dozens of men and destroy strong buildings. Lo, these flying chariots kill as many men as an army with swords. But the men they kill have metal sticks which crack like stones slapped together and a great distance away farther than an arrow's flight another man falls, wounded or dead. And these armies have even larger metal tubes which fire burning stones which fly greater distances many times an arrow's flight and the burning stones burst and kill many men or destroy buildings like the flying chariots. There are even giant metal chariots like turtles the size of a small house with many webbed wheels and a large death tube which can turn and launch bursting stones upon the enemy.

The metal turtle chariots have such size and weight they could kill an army of twenty thousand just by crawling over the men yet the men's swords would do no damage. The men with the metal sticks which spit death do not fire upon the metal turtle chariots for even their weapons would do no injury. They use a metal death tube to fire a bursting stone at the metal turtle chariots.

This war is hell on Earth but these men do not run in fear from these terrible weapons. This hell is their home and they fight without fear of these strange things. They are a part of this and dress in strange clothes with colors and shapes which make it easy for them to hide within a man's vision.

So, not locusts which poison men with their scorpion tails. Frankly they sound more like a poor description of wasps. Armored like war horses, flying, scorpion tails = wasp =/= helicopter. The crowns of gold, lion's teeth, men's faces & women's hair, not so much wasps as a bad drug trip or schizophrenic delusion. Armored like war horses, flying, scorpion tails, crowns of gold, lion's teeth, men's faces, women's hair =/= helicopter. Although if we knock out all but two of the teeth and have those sideways in the mouth, those could be wasp mandibles. And maybe the 'armored like war horses' could be an attempt to describe the exoskeleton of the wasp.

In John's Revelation he speaks of an army of 200,000,000 cavalry so let's add that in:

Quote

These flying chariots, metal turtle chariots, and hidden soldiers face the army of two hundred thousand thousand horsemen who outnumber them by many. But when the fighting begins the horsemen fall and fall and fall until they are no more. Yet the army of metal and bursting stones has suffered few deaths.

I did find out that the word used in the Bible does not mean "bird" but is rather a general term for flying things. So I've stopped referring to that 'error' since it is less of an error if you use the original text. The problem enters with the bad translations of that passage.

From whatever book in which animals are accurately described to the primitive people of Biblical times:

Quote

The bat has no feathers so it is not a bird though it flies. Flight is how it moves not what it is. The creatures that have fur and hair are related to each other but of their own kinds. Those that have feathers are related to each other but of their own kinds. And so on with the other creatures.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Thanks you for all your wonderful questions. Once again, Moses, John, and a host of others simply wrote down what they say (or had a scribe write it- whatever the case may be).

Moses never existed. The Israelites were never a slave nation in Egypt. The exodus never took place.

Just because other authors (and there were many) of parts of books of the Bible said they saw things, does not mean that (a) they actually saw them, (b) they were not so deluded as to imagine seeing them nor (c) did it prevent later scribes "improving" on what they thought they might have seen by adding greater wonders, and (d) it did not prevent mistakes and omissions creeping in.

What you see of the Bible today has not a lot of resemblance to the earliest manuscripts, and those manuscripts are not parallel texts, each one will be different.

To show that this is the case, you need only compare NIV with KJV1611. And that was done in the 'recent' past.

If this is not enough, there is nothing in the Bible that allows you to go inventing your own fairy stories by plucking out verses at random and giving them your "special spin."

There is no end to the earth in sight, and there never has been.

« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 12:36:45 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Added to which one has to remember that the story about him being an illiterate sheep herder is all very well but could easily be written later as a back story. I suspect Mo was fairly well read and bright and saw what he was doing as a way to the top and a way to stay there.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Once again, Moses, John, and a host of others simply wrote down what they say (or had a scribe write it- whatever the case may be). You may like it, or not. You may agree or disagree with it. But much of the Bible is people telling us what they saw. If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say.

If that is your whole point, then no - you don't have to say anything. John had a dream, and wrote down the stuff he saw, and attached some personal meaning to it. I have no argument with ANY of that.

But that's NOT all you have been saying. You've been saying that what he saw was a prediction of the future, and that this future is imminent, despite there being glaring inconsistencies between what he reported as seeing, and what we would expect to see reported by someone who had popped back ten years from the future to let us know what actually went down.

There are simply too many problems with what John says he saw for it to be useful as a prophecy of what could actually come to pass, and in all honesty ceased to be credible with the invention of gunpowder. With every "advance" in warfare, what he saw becomes less and less credible as a prophecy, and more and more likely to be a fevered dream. Aircraft, tanks, missiles, grenades.....all things conspicuously missing from his vision.

In the years 1 to around 1000 CE, I could see the Revelation being possible to apply as prophecy because it reports things that we would expect to see (regardless of what they were named in the vision). As time goes on, it had become less and less credible, to the extent that today I fail to see how anyone can legitimately regard it as a prediction of future events.

Added to which one has to remember that the story about him being an illiterate sheep herder is all very well but could easily be written later as a back story. I suspect Mo was fairly well read and bright and saw what he was doing as a way to the top and a way to stay there.

Added to which one has to remember that the story about him being an illiterate sheep herder is all very well but could easily be written later as a back story.

That's possible. I'm not an islamic scholar, and I know a lot more about early xianity than I do early islam. But my understanding is Mo was far, far better documented than jesus H. My understanding is we know a lot more about him and what we do know has a much higher probability of being true. So I think it is more likely he was illiterate.

I suspect Mo was fairly well read and bright and saw what he was doing as a way to the top and a way to stay there.

I doubt it, at least the well read part. Nothing he said I am aware of suggests a person who had broad knowledge of anything. He was shrewd and charismatic. But mainly I think he was in the right place at the right time. That counts for almost everything. Check out the book Outliers, by Malcom Gladwell, if you've not read it already.

You stated:Another word that did not exist back then was homosexual. I have heard many try to defend homosexuality, claiming the word is not in the Bible. The Bible CLEARLY denounces homosexuality, yet- the word "homosexual" was not used until much later.

I responded:FAR more clearly, it denounces wearing mixed fiber clothing and eating shellfish. Read Leviticus and get back to me with an explanation of why THAT set of instructions is not important enough to follow but the ones you think matter are. Then we can move on to Isaiah and discuss the massive amounts of incoherent nonsensical babbling in that book as well.

Do you intend to address the selective application of biblical instruction you are employing that I'm asking you about in the above clipped post? I've been patiently waiting for a reply, is one forthcoming? It's reply #45 if that makes it easier for you to locate the original, and the link will take you directly to it in any case.

But it is interesting to note that he has endorsed an "academic boycott" of Israel to protest their policies towards the Palestinians.

I genuinely have mixed feelings on his tactics, and mixed feelings about the whole concept of an "academic boycott." But I certainly share his concerns about the Israeli governments policies towards the Palestinians.

But the big question is, was Hawking hoping the move the Apocalypse along by his efforts???

You stated:Another word that did not exist back then was homosexual. I have heard many try to defend homosexuality, claiming the word is not in the Bible. The Bible CLEARLY denounces homosexuality, yet- the word "homosexual" was not used until much later.

I responded:FAR more clearly, it denounces wearing mixed fiber clothing and eating shellfish. Read Leviticus and get back to me with an explanation of why THAT set of instructions is not important enough to follow but the ones you think matter are. Then we can move on to Isaiah and discuss the massive amounts of incoherent nonsensical babbling in that book as well.

Do you intend to address the selective application of biblical instruction you are employing that I'm asking you about in the above clipped post? I've been patiently waiting for a reply, is one forthcoming? It's reply #45 if that makes it easier for you to locate the original, and the link will take you directly to it in any case.

I believe those have to do with the Jewish Kosher Laws. Homosexuality however is a moral (law) issue and forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

I believe those have to do with the Jewish Kosher Laws. Homosexuality however is a moral (law) issue and forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

Now you are making distinctions that are not really there. Jesus endorsed the OT laws - indeed he was a Jew so was likely to do so. the Torah (the teaching) refers to all the laws not just a selection picked because they are easy to manage. Deciding something is a moral law, though how being born a homosexual is a moral choice I have no idea, is to evade the question.

Homosexuality is observed in not only homo sapiens but in many, many species of animals so it isn't so much a question of choice but of nature. It is also the case that the bible claims that god is the creator and preserver of the world and even watches people as they develop in the womb (Ps 139) so he already knows that a particular person will be gay, even before that person is born. You have to also be saying, therefore, that god deliberately creates gay people to specifically have no sex life. Why would he do that? However, if people are born like this, that it is not a moral matter at all but a cultural rule popped into the biblical text.

Which neatly brings us to whether you make sure your garments are made of only one sort of thread as prescribed in the Torah. Please not answer - it only takes a yes or a no..

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I believe those have to do with the Jewish Kosher Laws. Homosexuality however is a moral (law) issue and forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

This is a double standard. You're basically saying that an ancient 'law' you personally approve of and follow is a moral law and thus should be obeyed by everyone, Christian or otherwise, lest they suffer some truly horrible punishment after death, but other ancient 'laws' that you don't care about and don't follow can be ignored by anyone who doesn't want to follow them without any repercussions whatsoever.

This illustrates one of the most critical problems with Christianity - it isn't just about Christians, it's about the whole human race, and thus Christians make it their business to try to dictate what's moral and what's not to everyone else, on threat of some really nasty, vicious punishments after people are dead (and often, some pretty harsh treatment by Christians before they die). If you want to live by contradictory rules like those, that's one thing. But neither you nor any other Christian has any right whatsoever to try to coerce anyone else into following them. And before you start playing sophistry games like, "this is what God said would happen, so I'm just warning people", bear in mind that you will be expected to prove that this is the case, by producing an unambiguous, verifiable message from your god that is not thousands of years old.

As long as you insist that belief is a matter of faith - in other words, that you don't actually know for sure and never will - then you have no basis for making such grandiose claims.

I believe those have to do with the Jewish Kosher Laws. Homosexuality however is a moral (law) issue and forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

You will need to provide the book, chapter and verse in the New Testament where homosexuality is forbidden. To my knowledge there is only one passage in the NT (in Romans IIRC) that is purported to condemn homosexuality – not that it really does, it condemns men "abusing" themselves and only someone who has a dysfunctional sex life themself would consider normal sex to be abuse.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

I believe those have to do with the Jewish Kosher Laws. Homosexuality however is a moral (law) issue and forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

Now you are making distinctions that are not really there. Jesus endorsed the OT laws - indeed he was a Jew so was likely to do so. the Torah (the teaching) refers to all the laws not just a selection picked because they are easy to manage. Deciding something is a moral law, though how being born a homosexual is a moral choice I have no idea, is to evade the question.

Homosexuality is observed in not only homo sapiens but in many, many species of animals so it isn't so much a question of choice but of nature. It is also the case that the bible claims that god is the creator and preserver of the world and even watches people as they develop in the womb (Ps 139) so he already knows that a particular person will be gay, even before that person is born. You have to also be saying, therefore, that god deliberately creates gay people to specifically have no sex life. Why would he do that? However, if people are born like this, that it is not a moral matter at all but a cultural rule popped into the biblical text.

Which neatly brings us to whether you make sure your garments are made of only one sort of thread as prescribed in the Torah. Please not answer - it only takes a yes or a no..

Can you please list some of the animals that practice homosexuality?Thanks

I believe those have to do with the Jewish Kosher Laws. Homosexuality however is a moral (law) issue and forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

You will need to provide the book, chapter and verse in the New Testament where homosexuality is forbidden. To my knowledge there is only one passage in the NT (in Romans IIRC) that is purported to condemn homosexuality – not that it really does, it condemns men "abusing" themselves and only someone who has a dysfunctional sex life themself would consider normal sex to be abuse.

You stated:Another word that did not exist back then was homosexual. I have heard many try to defend homosexuality, claiming the word is not in the Bible. The Bible CLEARLY denounces homosexuality, yet- the word "homosexual" was not used until much later.

I responded:FAR more clearly, it denounces wearing mixed fiber clothing and eating shellfish. Read Leviticus and get back to me with an explanation of why THAT set of instructions is not important enough to follow but the ones you think matter are. Then we can move on to Isaiah and discuss the massive amounts of incoherent nonsensical babbling in that book as well.

Do you intend to address the selective application of biblical instruction you are employing that I'm asking you about in the above clipped post? I've been patiently waiting for a reply, is one forthcoming? It's reply #45 if that makes it easier for you to locate the original, and the link will take you directly to it in any case.

I believe those have to do with the Jewish Kosher Laws. Homosexuality however is a moral (law) issue and forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

Show me please. I've never been able to figure out which specific passages forbid homosexuality. Please provide the chapter and verse - I've wondered about this for a long time now.

EDIT: Never mind, I see you did so above - I'll chase them down later today, as I'm pretty sure this conversation won't be over after I read them.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 08:36:14 AM by Jag »

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Show me please. I've never been able to figure out which specific passages forbid homosexuality. Please provide the chapter and verse - I've wondered about this for a long time now.

These are the only references I have ever found:

Romans 1:26-7 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians 6:9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Logged

Quote

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

^^^and this is the basis by which they conclude that homosexuality is a moral offense? WTH? Do they overlook that it's on the same level of "bad" as masturbating?

Fornicators, idolator, adulterers. Why do we never hear screams of agony over adulterers - we can generally find a victim in the case of adultery can't we? Why are we not demanding that adulterers undergo anti-adultery conversation therapy?

And those fornicators - who are probably idoltors as well, the nasty f'ers - why aren't we rounding up everyone having sex with someone other than a legally contracted spouse and throwing them in jail? Then once contained in a cell, they can be preached into submission!

And if "abusers of themselves" is referring to anything other than masturbation, I'll eat holybuckets hat. Keep your hands out of your pants hb! No gay sex and no self abuse! You're on your way to hell already, so you might as well lighten up on the gay folks.

Why so hung up on gay sex? I've got some stats that you should be way more interested in. According to the Guttmacher Institue, in the US:o The average age for first time sex is 17o Average age for marriage is 28 for men and 26 for womeno By age 44 95% of Americans have had premarital sex, and this has been the case for decades; of women born in the 1940’s, nearly 9 in 10 had sex before marriage

Why are your undies not in an uproar over all this other sex that falls outside the tightly prescribed rules of the bible? Hypocrite much? Get off your high horse and try minding your own business about other people's sex lives unless you are prepared to follow ALL the biblical instructions about sex.

And for the record, I'm heterosexual, I'm just not a nosy intrusive smug twit who thinks anyone else's sex life is mine to evaluate and judge.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

I wonder how much of those quotes, EV, is cultural and how much is actually the teaching of Jesus. Jesus never discusses the topic so I would suggest that the writers of these passages base this on the cultural norms of the time which is hardly saying it is the rules of a god.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

1. because they find it yucky.2. because it arouses them mightily and makes them ashamed.3. because they need to hate someone and interracial sex is now okay.

4. because, unlike most other "sins", it's a sin that heterosexuals aren't tempted by at all, so it's a lot easier for them to pass judgment about it on other people -- no worries about being accused of hypocrisy, or anything like that.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn